central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome to "the daily show". my name is jon stewart. got a good one for you this evening. my guest tonight column inconsistent charles krauthammer is joining us. but first 50 years ago in dallas an assassination that changed -- sorry i thought we were having a discussion earlier.

[cheers and applause] earlier tonight we were having a spirit and interesting discussion. i thought i would make a weighty joke about it. we begin on wall street. it's been five years since the financial collapse that tanked the global economy. while no one has been sent to jail or community service or even had a one hour time out in their home or faced the reality of causing a catastrophe maybe it's about to change. >> jp morgan and the justice department have tentatively agreed to a d.l. 13 billion settlement. >> $13 billion settlement with the government to settle for bad loans. >> they say jp morgan willingly misled people by backing lisky

mortgages. >> jon: risky mortgages. it seems like when tom cruise was in that movie and they packaged the loans with a sultry derive actives trader. i remember her. that's why so many traders work in a button down and underpants. $13 billion what lucky bastards are getting a bite after this cheese. $6 billion goes towards investor compensation $4 billion for homeowner relief and $2 billion in penalty fines but the government has to pay jp morgan's $8 settlement processing fees. damn you bank fees. damn you and your bank! you know who must be thrilled to hear this news financial and lives and business reporters who after years of covering corporate misdeeds are seeing justice served. >> what is up with this incredible $13 billion shake

down of jp morgan. >> the justice department feels like it needs scalps. the obama administration is at war. >> is it a witch hunt. >> it's a jihad against jp morgan. >> jon: it's a shake down, witchhunt scalping jihad. so wait, what i saw is a mutually negotiated compensatory agreement related of shaky business dealings you see it as a shakedown which you compared to jihad. it's like if the holocaust had sex with slavery while the last ten seconds of human centipeed watched. i'll bite. what is the great injustice done to jp morgan chase here? >> 80% of the mortgage backed securities they are punished for were acquired when they got bear sterns -- >> so someee degree it seems wrg

that jp morgan has to pay for what happened. >> what jury is going to hold jp morgan chase libel for the documents that bern sterns -- bear sterns. >> jon: you are saying why are they responsible for the lants of company that they bought? but i guess because they bought the company. physical this is new way you want to run it now. i owe jp morgan chase $500,000 on my mortgage and i decided (bleep) this place. i'm going to silt and walk away with the money. under this new information the guy who buys it doesn't owe you guys (bleep). problems you cause don't disappear because someone buys you. they are included in the price. you know who knew that? jamie diamond from jp morgan chase. he told investors any liability related to the assets will come

with us. he praised his company for by setting aside a d.l. 28 billion rainy day settlement fund and guess what? it's raining (bleep). looks to me like this government settlement is $15 billion less than what diamond thought it might be. the only way this settlement could get sweeter is it if it was tax deductible. >> it could be down to $9 billion. >> because the majority of deal is expected to be tax deductible. >> son of a bitch n. this confirms what i said settlements for malfeasance and donations do breast cancer charities are equal in the eyes of the law. the passion and drive from so many cnbc and financial analysts goes solely in one direction and not in the direction you normally associate with journalism. here is maria reacting.

>> i think any time you are looking at the greatest fine in wall street regulation it's worth asking should this guy stay in his job. >> the company continues to churn out tens of billions in earning and hundreds of billions in revenue, how do you criticize that? >> jon: because profit is the only way we judge things. only at cnbc is breaking bad the story how one man through hard work and bad business practices sloally insulates himself from criticism watch as they suggest there may be other ways of looking at morgan chase. >> a lot of earnings and \revenue/receive knew we've seen come from shady dealings. >> come on. >> it's a fact. it's in the news. >> what is the fact? >> they hired of children of prominent party officials and there's a spread sheet which connected the deals they were trying to do in china. >> i don't like hearing things that will not facts on this program.

>> anybody can google china and jp morgan. it was in the "new york times". >> oh, "the new york times", oh, okay. [ laughter ] >> jon: oh, "the new york times", the paper of record for crackheads and liars. just out of curiosity financial journalists seem to feel that the "new york times" reporting is beneath their veracity standards. is there a new source that is fact-filled and trustworthy enough to quote on your hallowed cnbc air. >> mandatory reading the editorial in the wall street journal. >> want to talk about the editorial in the wall street journal. >> shakedown as "the wall street journal". >> if you you have to work at the editorial board you might as well be at the "new york times". >> the only place the financial guys consider factual enough for rebroadcast is the one part of

the rupert murdoch bias machine explicitly labeled opinion. there may be one fact that jp morgan found themselves in when taking on the liabilities of washington mutual and bern sterns. >> the government asked jp morgan buy up bear sterns and buy washington mutual. >> they came to jpm hat in hate in order to save them from collapse. >> they begged him to do it. he walked away. >> wamu and bear sterns. >> the government did put a gun to their head. they were vigorously encouraged to take over bear sterns. >> jon: oh, i did not realize that. i did not realize that the government put a gun to his head, forced him into a bad deal. now i get your outrage. i'm sorry. if only there was a way to go back in time to when that deal

was consumated in 2008 and see how outraged cnbc was for jp morgan at that time as the government forced diamond to swallow this (bleep) sandwich. [ laughter ] and i wonder if the individual who could give us a sense of that deal was an old friend who doesn't seem to realize his shows are taped and broadcast. so much the better. there's no word in the english lange lange wig that captured the ruthless brielance of what jamie diamond, the ceo of jp morgan accomplished this weekend. >> jon: go on. >> die manned masterminded a deal that is mazing for jp morgan and makes me want to say bye bye bye. he totally outfoxed the fed. there's no denying it was a steal. maybe a shakedown if the legal department would let me.

i mean it as a positive. it's the henry potter prize for merciless take no prizer ins but lots of profits banking. [laughter] w

>> jon: welcome back. earlier this year the supreme court effectively struck down the voting rights act saying it had been immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination so basically saying enough is enough. i mean, why ruin a good thing by continuing it? [laughter] assif mandvi reports. >> the voting rights acts of 1965 protected voters from racial discrimination until june when the supreme court struck dun a key provision saying it was no longer necessary which red states celebrated by introducing constitutional restrictive voting laws. >> these laws are just as racist as they can be. >> congressman john lewis apparently doesn't like progress. >> in another time and another period, these devices was used to make it harder, make it

difficult for the average person of color to part in a process. >> i don't think any part of law is racist. >> north carolina precinct chairman and josh beckettive committee member don yeltin thinks his state's voting restrictions are just fine. >> the process will have more integrity. right here in bunkham county there's one or two that voted twice a year. >> one or two million people? >> one or two people. >> one or two out of how many? >> that's just one or two out of 60,000. >> so staiskly there's -- statistically there's enough voter fraud to sway zero elections. >> that's not the point. >> the point is vote your fraud does just barely exist while racism, according to the supreme court is a thing of the past. >> the scars and stains of racism are still deeply embedded in every corner of american society. >> but you are just talking about racism, racism, racism as

if it's the 1960's. it's not the 1960's anymore. i think the men in this picture would be ashamed you are throwing around the word racism so cavalierly. >> i am in that picture. >> what? >> i'm there. >> see, this is why you people need i.d.es because we can't tell you apart. i mean, civil rights leaders. >> we all don't look alike. >> you know what you all have? the same aura of hope. >> we never gave up or become bitter snch that denzel washington? >> no there was the head of naacp. >> the bottom line is the law is not racist. >> the core the law is not racist and you are not racist. >> well, i've been called a bigot before. you don't look like me but i treat you like everybody else. as a matter of fact, one of my best friends is black. >> one of your best friends is

black? >> yes. >> and there's more. >> when i was a young man, you didn't call a black a black. you called him a negro. i had a picture of obama sitting on a stump as a witch dr. for your information i was making fun of my white half of obama, not the black half. and now you have a back person using the term nigger this, nigger that. ant it's okay for them to do it. >> you know that we can hear you, right? >> yes. >> you know that we can hear you? >> yes. >> okay. all right. then i found out for the real reason for the law. >> the law is going to cict democrats in the butt. >> wow an executive g.o.p. committee member admitted that this law isn't designed to hurt people, it's designed to hurt democrats. >> if it hurts a bunch of college kids too lazy to get up off her bohunkus and get a photo i.d., so be it. >> right, right. >> if it hurts the whites so be

it. if it hurts a bunk of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything, so be it. >> it just so happens that a lot of those people vote democrat. >> gee! that's right to supposedly prevent one or two cases of fraud this law could suppress hundreds of thousands of actual voters. >> i can't believe we have that many stupid people in north carolina and people that don't know how to follow directions that go down there and get a photo i.d. for free at the dmv. do you want those people picking your president? >> no, we certainly don't want stupid people picking our president or democrats apparently. racism is over, yes. >> it's not there yet. >> oh, okay. >> everyone should have the same opportunity to vote. >> so the playing field should be level? >> must be level. the playing field must be level. >> since republicans are trying to suppress democratic votes perhaps the only fair way to level the playing field is to

try to suppress republican votes. do a lot of republicans come in here? >> no. >> wheel it in. move voting booths to black hair balloons and here. add mandatory friend requirements. tell republicans to do what jesus would do and remember most importantly -- >> vote, vote. >> because i voted and now i'm gay. >> that's right republicans, voting makes you gay. [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> jon: assif e@@2nd2%pá !l

applause]d >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight pulitzer prize winning journalist and fox news contributor his new book is called "things that matter: three decades of passions, past times and politics." please welcome to the program charles krauthammer. thank you for being here. this is the book. hopefully we can get that there inn here. there you go. "things that matter" 30 years do you ever look back and think what was i thinking? >> it's worse than that. [ laughter ] >> jon: go head. >> the worst part of writing the book is going all the way back and reading the million words i'd written. by the end of this process i was near suicidal. i can't believe his written that stuff.

>> jon: what has the growth process been like? >> the growth process? well, i was once a liberal. >> reporter: so the early writings showed hope? -- >> jon: so the early writings showed hope? >> and then came change. [ laughter ] >> jon: let's talk about that. your politics have shifted from liberal to conserve active. here is my issue with conservative politics as they stand right now. it's too easy. it doesn't have any of the responsibility of governan. if your mantra is government cannot help, then any chaos or lett argue thaty that you dlethargy that you sow to the government has no point. that would be true but unfortunately, the assumption

character tour. you might have argued that in the twhirts the conservatives argued against the new deal. there's no question of accepting the great achievements of liberalism, the new deal, social security, medicaid, medicare. the idea that you don't allow the elderly to enter into defendant tuition say consensual idea that at least the mainstream of conservatives. >> jon: i would say that the rhetoric is the same. if you lock at the rhetoric when conservatives opposed the new deal, opposed social security and medicare it's identical. ted cruz quotes ronald reagan's speech in 1906 as he opposed obamacare. >> ted cruz is not the spokesman for conservatives. paul ryan. let me start with his his assumption. it's not that government doesn't have a role. his assumption is that the

welfare state as established with great success by liberals has now reached a point where it no longer fits. with the new demographics and higher technology and medicine, we'll simply become insolvent unless we radically reform. i'll give you one fact. when social security was instituted, the age of longevity was 62. today life expectancy is 80. so what sufficient a huge -- so what you have is a huge change in the demographics and when you look to europe which is the social democratic state where we're headed which has all the entitlements of the government activities which a liberal would want and -- to with wit american liberalism is headed it became insolvent because it never adapted to the change in

demographic and technology. >> jon: if it was ever presented in that fashion, the way you just presented it, i think the conversation we would be having in this country is very different. >> that's why you have to buy this book. [laughter] >> jon: so this book is the one that presents it. >> one book is all you need. this is it. you don't need more. >> jon: even paul ryan does not present it in the manner in the great victories of liberalism medicare and social security, the great social safety net that liberals have helped build and fought for. it's presented as progressivism is destroying our nation, obamacare is going to change us from not being america anymore and i think germany would argue with your economic argument that a social democratic state cannot prosper and create wealth. >> look, you don't expect a

politician to spend half his speech praising the other side. so it's a matter of time constraints. i have a lot of time. [ laughter ] i have the book done, i had 30 years. it's in one book. easy to carry on. >> jon: i don't think this is the audience that needs to read it. give it to paul ryan and ted cruz. give it to them, no, they know. can you stick around. we'll be back with c

>> jon: that's our show. join us tomorrow at 11:00. here it is your moment of zen. >> there's new and definitive evidence tonight that americans have wa (cheers and applause) >> stephen: welcome to the "report"! good to have you with us. settle down here! this is it right